Jamie Dovolis: Epilogue

In the epilogue of naked econ was to raise a few questions, the one i found most interesting was the question, of "how rich is rich enough?" (218). How much time are we willing to invest to make our lives better? Money is said to make you life better a solution to most of your problems  but what are  their negative side effects? (more money more problems) With the extra hours worked by the people is this going to help or harm the middle class and the welth divide? If we make more do we also raise taxes to support the lower end, or are their layoffs as were become more efficient with production thuse not needing as many people to meet the demand.

Cat Potts, Epilogue, Question 2

The epilogue of Naked Economics answers the question which many people who study economics ask: "What about the humanitarian aspect of economics?" We've discussed this in class nearly everyday, whether it be regarding sweatshops or unemployment or poverty. Wheelan reminds us that economics is not an exact science (because if it were, heaven knows we wouldn't be swimming in trillions of dollars of debt and an ever increasing wealth gap), but rather a set of tools which we can use to attempt to better our lives. But, that doesn't mean that economics is irrelevant. At the very end of the epilogue, Wheelan points out that there is an economic aspect of every major issue which our society faces today. So, how do we find the balance? How do we use our knowledge of economy to better the lives of everyone, not only financially but also on a level of basic human need? We have the knowledge and capabilities to positively affect change. Can we predict exactly what the outcome will be when we try to make the world a better place? Of course not. But we have to try. Wheelan mentions that "our fiscal trajectory is unsustainable." Is it just me, or is that absolutely terrifying? One day, things are going to come crashing down. And if we are left financially broken and cannot even manage to communicate with one another properly and come together as a society, how will we ever progress?

Kyle Kispert. Epilogue. Question 6

In the epilogue, Wheelan brings up an interesting question when discussing "How many minutes of work will a loaf of bread cost?"Work is something virtually everyone in the Unites States seek to do at various stages of life. Its hard to have an income without working. As talked about in this book, the economy is growing the more we work. In that paragraph, Wheelan asks how rich is rich enough? As people get more wealthier so does the nation. This has obvious positive effects on our lives. For example, as America becomes wealthier, health care can improve and become more accessible in the long run. This chapter made me think if there are any negative impacts to our nation getting wealthier. In many utopian movies that I can think of, where there seems to be an endless supply of money, a problem always arises and people don't always appear as happy. If one day we become so rich that we can have anything we want, would we feel satisfied or would we lose morals. I think that not being the richest man in the world drives us to work harder and learn more. No one knows how much our economy will grow but human life may be dramatically different it if continues to grow.

Sam McDonald Epilogue #6

As I read the Epilogue of Naked Economics, I came to a section that was very refreshing for me. This section stated that although today American's are one of the hardest working people of most first world country's, as wages increase there will be a point where we work less hours. Naked Economics goes on  to list some things that are equally, if not more, valuable than the machine that is capitalism and economics. Some of these things are humanity values, culture, beauty, and community. After reading this entire book which focuses on only what is good for the economy I have been swept up a bit by its mechanical reasoning which disregards many human values. Reading the epilogue made be ponder whether we should rely more on economics or our human values.

Thomas Shogren, Epilogue, Question #6

The passage that struck me as interesting was about the future of the fiscal house of America. Obviously the fiscal policy in place right now isn't working and it needs change (the sooner the better). If the fiscal policy doesn't change then not only will the American economy tank, but the economy of the whole world will spiral down into economic downturn. The economy is "more like a group of mountain climbers tethered together on the edge of a precipice" (Wheelan 323). If one economy falls then all the others will fall with it. Therefore, if the fiscal policy doesn't change in America then America (and the world for that matter) could be a really different place in 2050, and not for the better.

Caroline Pellegrin, Epilogue, Question Two

As a country I think we like to live in the present.  For the most part people don't think too much about what our economy will look like 50 so years from now. We are concerned about Taylor Swift's new music video and ISIS (some of us more than others), not the state of our future economy. I think that's because we feel like we have little control over our nation's economy. After reading this book, I realize that is true, but also not true. (so not eloquent)  While we can't control what the Federal Reserve does or if the stock market takes a dip, we do have an influence. When people are involved in politics and community based organizations their economic decisions begin to hold more weight. While we can't control if our neighbor doesn't recycle, we can choose to elect a political figure who upholds "sin taxes." We live in a country that is flawed, challenged and often frustrating, but we do have a voice. We can make changes, but we need to be able to look beyond our immediate circumstances.

Andre LaRenzie, Epilogue, Question #6

The final passage of "Naked Economics" includes the author, Charles Wheelan, talking about what the future of the American Economy will look like. He touches on 7 different topics including poverty, future debt of America, and the economy possibly solving social issues. Narrowing in on the social issues, he raises the topic of teaching salary. America does not reward teachers for how well or how poorly they teach their subject. Also, because of this, teachers are highly over educated and highly under appreciated with salaries, especially when we live in a nation that is founded upon schooling. I found this passage interesting because I have agreed with this topic. Teachers should be judged on how well they teach, or how poorly. Then teachers have incentives to help build the youth of this nation. Wheel an hopes that social issues like this will be fixed in the future, and I will be hoping for the same. Mr. Hoffner's salary would be high based off of his teaching ability obviously. (Insert 10 extra credit points)

Amelia Vayda, Epilogue, Question 7

In the epilogue of Naked Economics, Wheelan discusses seven questions that he believes should be asked to help us see where the economy will be in a few years. While reading this last chapter I learned that our future economy is hard to predict because you don't know how changes that we make now will affect the future. Not knowing how the economy is going to end up is a little unnerving. There are many changes that could occur, for example how many hours people work or how many years people work. This introduction into a world of the unknown has changed my way of thinking. I always thought that how we live now will never change, but that is not exactly true. Now I see that we could have a totally different education system, work ethic, and even a different ratio between rich and poor. I get a new perspective that what we do now could either help or hurt us in the long run. 

Emma Tyler, Epilogue, Question #2

In the epilogue of Naked Economics, Wheelan writes "The remarkable thing about economics is that once you've been exposed to the big ideas, they begin to show up everywhere" (325). Coming to the close of this novel, I have found that economics is everywhere and it affects my everyday life. Additionally, in the epilogue I saw how economics can affect my future, the future of the US, and the future of the world. For example, on a personal level, if economics is used in some way to rearrange the education system, like Wheelen discussed at one point, then I will have to deal with the outcomes of that decision if I have children someday whom I put into that system. Or speaking on a national level, if the US doesn't get it together and figure out a way to pay back our enormous debt to China, and pay for the expenses that come with the aging population of Baby Boomers, we will be in a huge economic mess. And even regarding the status of the entire world, good economic choices can affect the development of currently impoverished countries and make them the new "Asian Tigers," well, rather the "African Tigers." I have learned from this book that economics affects my everyday life and my future in a huge way.

Jamie Dovolis

This chapter disscuses how trade and globalization bennifists just about everyone. Yet people argue and exclame how bad trade is, they go out of there way to protest, boycott, and debate. This shows me that people are dumb. People like to cause a huff over fulty information. The workers we are producing cheep clothing because they have no better options, making $2 an hour is infinitely better then making nothing. These protesters if they want to help should not boycott there only income, but help build up there resources, by donating and helping these communitys. So even though their pay is poor their quality of life can improve.

Andre LaRenzie, Chapter 12, Question #6

In chapter 12 of "Naked Economics" by Charles Wheelan, the author speaks on the topic of Trade and Globalization. More specifically, he highlights many points on what trade does. In the section titled "Trade Makes us Richer", Wheelan touches on the topic of productivity making us richer and specialization making us productive. He uses the example of mechanical engineers in Seattle compared to factory workers who make clothing in Bangladesh. He asks why do we import clothes made by unskilled workers when we can have others do that who are more qualified? He then answers this question by saying that the engineers are busy making airplanes, and maximizing their value for their time. Creating clothes that an unskilled worker could is a waste of time for a qualified engineer. I found this particular passage illuminating because I've always wondered why we import clothing from poor countries and unskilled workers when we can make it ourselves. I now have my answer.

Kispert Kyle. Chapter 12. Question 4

In previous chapter we have analyzed, it was concluded that on most occasions political leaders (such as govoners) will shape policies to improve the present day; which will keep people happy and improve chances of reelection. This proves effective keeping in mind that future leaders will do the same to benefit their time. In chapter 12, Wheelan talks about outsourcing and it's effects. The short turn effects can be negative and make many people angry; still no politician has made it illegal. There's two sides to the problem regarding policies and there intentions. My opinion about this is to always keep the future in mind. If a policy is made that is not reasonable but only improves today and benefits yourself by keeping people happy, I don't believe it is a wise decision. Though people may not understand the future benefits, I still think it should still be the goal to secure a better future.

Thomas Shogren, Chapter 12, Question #6

There were two passages in this chapter that struck me as very significant. The first passage was, "productivity is what makes us rich. Specialization is what makes us productive. Trade allows us to specialize" (Wheelan 275). This quote explains itself because as people become more productive they can become wealthier by producing more. People can become more productive because they specialize in what they are the best at. Trade allows people to specialize because without trade everyone would have to produce everything they need in order to survive, which would make specialization impossible. The second passage was, "in the long run, trade facilitates growth and a growing economy can absorb displaced workers" (Wheelan 275). Many people don't like globalization because it costs others jobs. However in the long run globalization creates more jobs and causes people to become more educated and productive so that they can stay employed. Globalization also lowers costs of goods and services because the cost of production will decrease. The benefits of globalization in the long run outweigh the costs of globalization in my opinion.

Cat Potts, Chapter 12, Question 5

After reading the blog posts of some of my classmates, Chapter 12 grows even more intriguing. It's fascinating how controversial the topics of trade and protectionism can be. Personally, I don't understand why protectionism is so pertinent in our society. I think it comes back to pride, as we've discussed before in class, and something that I've talked about in previous blogposts. America doesn't have to be on top all the time. We're actually worse off that way! Keeping jobs in America may be patriotic, but think about the example Wheelan uses with the engineer- their human capital goes to waste if these well-educated workers are spending time doing mundane tasks because Americans are too prideful. I get it; Americans are all about freedom, justice, independence, etc. But what good is pride when it inhibits us from contributing to the rest of the world? "But, Cat, what about the people who get paid practically nothing in another country for creating goods for trade?" Cost of living is also something to be considered. Wheelan uses the example of the worker in Maine getting paid $14 dollars an hour and a worker in Vietnam getting paid only $1 an hour for the same task. But keep it in perspective: How far does a dollar in the United States go, compared to a dollar in Vietnam? After doing some googling (not bing-ing. Sorry, Mr. Hoffner.), I found that most things (rent, groceries, consumer goods) cost at least 50% less in Vietnam compared to the US. Now, I get that Vietnam is just an example and those stats may or may not be accurate and that making just US minimum wage is still not ideal, but the point is that it's perspective. We have to be careful of our pride holding us back.

Sam McDonald chapter 12

While reading chapter 12 I came across the section titled Trade Creates Losers. Previously this year we have mainly talked about how globalization is wholesomely good for the growth and wealth of our country, but this section looks at the other end and in a way gives a face to those harmed by globalization.  This chapter says that we grow, as county, more wealthy due to globalization, but the individuals who lose their jobs don't necessarily end up in a better position. He gives the example of a worker who lost his job as a shoe factory worker to a factory in Vietnam. Wheelen states that this man is poorer now, and may always be. This has got me thinking that even though globalization is good for our country's wealth, is it really beneficial to the individual people?

Caroline Pellegrin, Chapter 12, Question Six

Dear Diary(econ blogpost),

I am a bit distraught. Wheelan concluded Chapter 12 with a quote from Paul Krugman, which states that "the anti-globalization movement already has a remarkable track record of hurting the very people it causes it claims to champion." I agree, overall global trade benefits both parties tremendously, or else the trade would not occur in the first place. When jobs are outsourced to various countries it creates new jobs and helps to stimulate that country's economy.  While being paid 2 dollars a day to make clothes in treacherous factory conditions is inconceivable to most Americans, it is a significant "step up" for many people who have even lower wages, or no job at all. The benefit to the worker is relative.  But my argument, which I will get to, is not relating to wages.  Working in a sweatshop is preferable to child prostitution, but that doesn't justify the conditions that many people are forced to work in.  People, no matter the potential economic efficiency,  should not have to work in an environment that is unsafe to their health. I don't think that's a creation of my naive idealism, but a basic respect for human life.  If a company feels it must compromise the basic safety of its workers over the production of tennis shoes, then their perceived interest should be re-evaluated.  An individual's freedom to work or not work at a dangerous factory does not eliminate the dire need for safety. Okay, that's all!

Yours Truly,

Caroline

Amelia Vayda, Chapter 12, Question 6

In chapter twelve of Naked Economics, Wheelan discusses how trade can make poor countries richer. One example he gives is when the major textile company in South Korea decided to work together with the Bangladeshi workers. Doing so increased the human capital; for example the workers in Bangladesh learned new skills which can't be taken away. After the South Korean company left, the company in Bangladesh did very well because they were given "essential building block" (283). Now seeing how trade can really help other countries, I don't understand how some people are against it. After reading this section I have come to learn how important trade is and why people should be in favor of it. 

Emma Tyler, Chapter 12, Question #7

After reading Chapter 12 of Naked Economics I learned an immense amount about globalization and world trade. I was not aware that some people were against globalization (so much as to actively protest and boycott items that support global trade). When it came up multiple times in the chapter that people were against globalization or for "antiglobalization," I wondered how they could think that global trade is bad. Wheelan then mentioned a Hooters restaurant in Puerta Vallarta, Mexico and a Starbucks in the Forbidden City in Beijing which can be described as "cultural homogenization." Wheelan acknowledges the idea of "cultural homogenization" but then quickly says it "may not be true anyway" because in America we can now watch Iranian movies from our Netflix accounts (286), so it goes both ways. Then Wheelan mentioned sweatshops, here I was sure he would not be able to find an upside to the horrible conditions underage workers had to endure for such little pay, however, he did! The workers are willing to accept such low pay because it is "better than any other option they have" (287). This would mean that in order to help the impoverished sweatshop workers, we, in more developed countries, should buy more from their sweatshops, increasing global trade so the underage workers are not forced to work even worse jobs or live, abandoned, on the streets, or worse be forced into human trafficking. After all these rebuttals to antiglobalization there seems to be no reason to be against globalization because of all the benefits it has the potential to give to all countries, both poor and rich alike.

Griffin Malone, Chapter 13, Question 6

In chapter 13 of Naked Economics Charles Wheelan shows us how good we have it in America. We have a stable effective government institution with no corruption. America continues to prosper economically due to our laws, law enforcement, courts, and tax collecting infrastructure. Most other countries would die to have our government. We need to be more grateful as Americans Andre our democratic government. Corruption that marks other countries discourages foreign investments and misuses resources. Tom Friedman a New York Times journalist points out how unique America is because we don't even need to bribe our government to get a simple permit. I love Mercia.

Kyle Kispert. Chapter 13. Question 3

While examining how the development aid process is broken, Wheelan tells the joke about the chickens and the priest. This story related to an economy and attempts to help it. As the chickens die in the story regardless of the priests suggestions, this hints at an unstable future. Though many steps can be taken to help something, we must be knowledgable about the subject to make a positive difference. From this passage, I conclude that the future can be threatening and dark if we are uneducated. However, if the the peasant would have asked a veterinarian, the chickens might have been saved.